>> moderator: let's move onto on to our next question. the median household income in 2011 was $51,150. in maine, that was $46,933 in 2010. when you think as the primary issue facing the middle-class in the state of maine and how would you address that? we are looking for specifics here. mr. dobbs? dodge: i think it comes back to the report that it is hard to make ends meet in the state of maine. we are doing very poorly inaccurate one of our biggest things is that we export all of our people. people get out of college and then they leave. there is that whole missing tier of maine like that is not emphasized. it is not increasing the size of businesses and it shows that people leave and do that elsewhere. the fundamental problem in maine

is that we need to reduce taxes and regulations and do everything we can to attract business, and we are clearly not doing that or we would not be able to earn a living. >> moderator: cynthia dill? dill: yes, i don't think there is a direct correlation between the ability to serve the public and your track record in terms of numbers and businesses. but to address the question, two thirds of the united states senate are millionaires. the bush tax cuts are a large part of the cost of debt and deficit across wall street. people are succumbing to it insatiable greed. i believe there is a direct correlation between their only 17 women in the united states senate and 24% of women live in poverty. i believe there is a correlation

between a senate that has captured corporate special interests and big money, and the fact that one in five children are without adequate health care. i believe there is a correlation between the growing disparity between the haves and have-nots in what we see in the challenges of maine families. i'm the only candidate talking about poverty, i am a middle class working mother and i will make a difference for maine families. >> moderator: we do want to get to the other candidates responses. angus king? before we have a small economic engine. it's nobody's fault. it's the way it is he is laid out. but the answer for us compete, first we had forces in carriage, and we had cars, now we are in a global marketplace. i was just in california last

week and we need to compete across the country that involves investment technology and it starts in grades k-12. to talk about jobs for people in their 20s and 30s, that is important. but we will not be competitive in the global marketplace we don't focus on it here at home. >> moderator: charlie summers? summers: our government has not been able to work together because of what everyone said. we are not putting in place specific things like comprehensive tax reform that makes sense. inefficiently accumulates revenue and is evenly distributed. what we need to do is make sure that we have comprehensive tax reform that makes sense and

address the misallocation of resources that we see to our government, as for instance in benghazi, when they drew down thousands of marine from iraq. we can have more independence there to make sure that the parties know that there is someone else available to take their place. >> moderator: let's move onto the next question right now. -- go ahead, really quickly -- okay. >> i have campaigned all over the state. some people have a second or third job to make ends meet for the best thing we can do is to get government off of businesses back so that they understand that if we have a tax system that is fair and they can plan five or 10 years down the road come in terms of hiring people, the best thing we can do is get government out of the way and reduce regulations and keep your taxes low and cut spending so that the economy can grow and people can have jobs to feed their families.

>> moderator: over the past months we have seen gas prices following. that is a nice change of pace. gases at $3.67 per gallon. the state record is $4.14 a gallon. what is the best way not in the short term but the long-term for a solution? >> we need to get off of oil permanently. the sooner we can have a substitute fuel and i think for the intermediate future, as long as we are careful about how it is extracted and it can be extracted safely, it is an enormous advantage to us. we can use it for natural gas. we can use it to power electric vehicles. at the same time, there should be a parallel developing renewables to be there when the

gas either runs out of the demand increases to the point where the price goes up. right now, to power your vehicle on natural gas is about equivalent the equivalent of $2 per gallon and it will be the same for home heating. getting off of oil should be the number one priority, and we are finally in a position to do it. >> moderator: senator cynthia dill? dill: certainly gas prices are a big issue in the state of maine. i do support the president's fuel efficiency standards that lead to automobiles that cost families less money. i'm the only candidate in the race who opposes the keystone pipeline. i do not believe that transporting oil is a way to get off the oil. i recognize that domestic production of gas and oil are

something that we have to rely on, and i support the president's policies that have led to the highest domestic production in decades. but we have to have solar power that needs to be explored and energy efficiency is the key. we need to conserve and become more efficient when it comes to our use of energy and fuel, and i that will lead to less rights on gas and oil. less hydrocarbons into the atmosphere and ultimately, less money spent. >> moderator: we want to go next to charlie. summers: somebody who works with their hands for a living, in the woods or the water, what they want to do is get back and forth to work in an inexpensive way. we have a moral responsibility to look for new ways, nuclear power, we have to have in all of the above strategy. ten years ago they had a debate.

they said we start drilling now, it will take 10 years before that oil becomes gasoline. we would've had it here today that was done 10 years ago. i think that we have a responsibility. every day that we import oil from the middle east is a data between people who are fighting against. we should be drilling for oil here in the united states and we should be looking at every alternative that we have. without that, not only is it an economic issue but a national security issue. i understand full well what that means. >> moderator: go ahead, mr. king's before this is an issue about the survival of civilization. where on earth do we have finite resources, finite energy resources and at some point, we are running out.

for future generations, this won't be about what is the price at the pump. it will involve agriculture, petroleum, it will involve our society and survival as a civilization. it it has to be one less urgent issues that we look at in terms of the government. the federal government is in a position to help support and subsidize new technologies. the more that we talk about politicizing this in the same way that we do with climate change, we move further away from the idea that it is science and math and it is urgent. >> moderator: let's move onto another question. before the draft provides access to affordable health care for health care for millions of americans. critics say it's too expensive and it pushes government on people. what do you like or not like about the portal care at?

>> access is what i like. the two parties, democrats and republicans, who i hope i replaced by more independence and they can be held accountable for being in the pockets of these major lobbyists, they don't come to complete the form when it comes to these major issues. but while major lobby groups like pharmaceutical companies and the ama and even the aarp get in the room and force them to make requirements that are for the best interests of the people, we don't have a public option which show that we don't have a public insurance provider because of the different lobbyist groups that everyone is taking money from.

>> moderator: angus king, would you like to answer that question? 's before it is already providing benefits to people here in the state of maine. it is covered for a gentleman who is 23 years old, he also was born with a tumor in his brain -- noncancerous, but he probably could not get help for the rest of his life, except for the rules of the affordable care act. so i think it is an important step forward. it does not cut medicare benefits. he relocates the money into the medicare system. the aarp, right down there on the screen has confirmed that. the next issue is cost.

and the affordable care act actually have some pilot programs, several of which are right here in the state of cynthia maine. i think it's very important. >> moderator: do you disagree? >> i do. for one very important reason. the affordable health care act -- the most misnamed thing that i've ever heard. this country is $16 trillion in debt. we are talking about spending an additional $2.6 trillion in where's that money going to come from? this is another big government solution that will cut $716 billion out of medicare. >> moderator: is that we don't like about it? summers: it is the 2.5 billion that will be cut for mainers and it will put a whole another government bureaucracy in place. in 1964 when it asked medicare and medicaid, it cost

$64 billion at that point. we need to do two things. we need to allow individuals to go across state lines and purchase health insurance what they purchased their homeowners insurance or any other insurance. the second part of that, which i believe you have a much less expensive option for us to allow them help. >> moderator: let's talk about social security is an issue. for millions of americans -- [inaudible conversations] >> moderator: yes, feel free to interrupt you want to. we are just trying to get through a lot of questions. dill: i want to thank the democrats for the affordable care act. they are no longer count on benefits and you can no longer be discriminated against as a pre-existing condition.

there is preventative mammograms and screenings, seniors get more affordable drugs and we should move to a single payer. the affordable care act is good and you can thank the democrats for it. >> moderator: mr. dodge? dodge: the democrats want to nationalize your health care, and that is their ultimate goal. obamacare is just the first step and i am against obamacare. any american who wants to decide with their own health care should be against it, to. >> i know firsthand from owning a health and wellness company that every dollar spent on preventive care health the overall cost of treatment. i think that when we talk about politicizing this, we lose sight of something. in america, we are not like other health care systems. we are not like britain or canada. our philosophy and dna -- we have a moral imperative to take

care people from prenatal care to our seniors. i do support affordable care act because it is the best present we have had in decades. but it is who we are as americans. we take care people when they are ill. we do not turn people away. hospitals, we do not deny people coverage. all the affordable care act does is make sure that we can identify help people. so i do support it. >> moderator: for millions of american come almost 300,000 people here in maine, social security is a safety net. one third of those benefits, 65 and older, rely on social security as their entire income. that's it. the average monthly benefit is $1065. please tell us what your plan for social security, not only for today's seniors, but also for future generations. i will start with cynthia dill. dill: ague. i have a 94-year-old grandmother

who only lives on social security. i know so many people in maine in america rely on it. you can thank the democrats for social security. what i would do to shore up the finances is raise the income tax currently at $110,000 a year or so. if we raise the $250,000, we can't ensure it going forward. we can also tax retiree reduction plan and gradually increase the contributions that people make into the system. currently, employees and employers contribute a social insurance program and if we all contribute us a little bit more, the program can be found for future generations. it's critically important. especially for women because they contribute. less because of making less wages, it helps people to live longer and it is something that i pledge to protect and

strengthen. dalton: i will not support any legislation for those in favor of privatization of social security. i will tell you why. fifteen years ago when i lost my first wife, my two young children got social security benefits and we were able to raise the children because of social security. i think it is important and i think those who have paid into it need to be protected. going forward, younger people as they come into the system, they may have to retire at a later date. wealthy people like angus king may not be able to get as much of a benefit. but it is important that we protect the people on the system i now. >> moderator: governor angus king? king: i think we need to understand how important it is in the state of maine. 8% of seniors in maine are now in poverty, that number will

jump to 49%. it is absolutely essential. i am set against privatization and i think it would destroy the program. i don't think it should be tested, that would turn it into a welfare program. i don't think it is an entitlement. i think it's something people have paid into an urn. social security is not in serious actuarial trouble you we can raise the cap on where the tax applies and 40 years from now, perhaps, we can increase the retirement age. it medicare is in much more serious financial condition and often those two are mixed up. but social security isn't relatively good shape. any effort to privatize it or voucher i said would be a huge mistake. >> moderator: danny dalton? dalton: anybody that doesn't

vote for an independent here -- don't ever complain about the two party system here. this is not a very big problem to fix. whether or not you want to call it an entitlement, if you say i have earned a, i wanted because i earned it. okay. whatever you call it, to put it on the backs of the younger people doesn't make any sense. you can justify 2% over the next 20 years and it would solve the whole shortfall. for people 55 and older, by the time i'm 65 years old and older, at least for 10 years am putting into it, and i'm solving the

problem. >> moderator: right now we are going to news reporter paul merrill who has a question from one of our viewers. >> this comes from her facebook page. sharon asks do the candidates support the policy that if the budget doesn't get passed, the people don't get paid? >> yes, i do. i do support that. i think everyone has talked about the two-party system. everyone has talked about what is wrong with government. i would like to make a comment on that. i think that what is really wrong is a broader sense of the decay of democracy. we are electing people that are making bad decisions for us. whatever it is how we handle debt, whether it is how we handle issues like budget that keeps going or our debt to china. the answer is for people to take ownership of democracy. the answer for all of these problems, i believe does not exist of these two tables. i think there are some fine men

and women that can be instruments for some of the solutions. the people involved, you need to be more involved and viewers need to demand, not this year, but across the state, that is where the answers are. yes, i do think it is ridiculous that we have people in government that aren't making decisions. yet they are collecting a paycheck when other people are suffering. >> moderator: let's have a show of hands. no budget -- no pay. okay. woods: the idea is that the two parties are supposed to be doing their jobs. these powerful interests and special interest groups, it is like to have an independent who can take and hold them accountable for not doing their job. and making sure that we are not

rewarding incompetence and bad behavior. because that is what they are doing. it is too big to fail. they are ensuring through the media that they get all of the attention in these other candidates here aren't even addressing it and the issues are part of the whole campaign. >> moderator: let's go to cynthia dill. dill: i totally support that they don't get paid. [talking over each other] woods: they are contributing nothing to my campaign. dill: so people who are part of no labels are a super pac -- it was reported on the radio tonight. i think this idea that somehow it is a party system, i think it is ridiculous. sure, a we can support no budget, no pay. but it is not as danny dalton said. they are all millionaires. we need people who are may be aware of what it takes to see

their family and who have been in the middle class grocery store. those who are in touch and knows there will be consequences if the budget doesn't pass. today's congress, they are out of touch. and we need a new generation of leadership. >> moderator: let's move onto medicare right now. medicare provides prescription drug coverage for millions of americans. what is your plan for medicare for current and future seniors? >> the first thing that we have to do is repeal obamacare. it cost $716 billion out of medicare and will cost maine 2.8 billion dollars.

that is like a projected savings from angus king we beat windmills. we need to protect medicare today and make sure that our seniors have that ability to benefit from that the program. the first thing that we need to do is repeal the president's health care program. before the first thing on medicare is no vouchers. that is the paul ryan planet was in the budget that congressman ryan wanted to do -- he wanted to turn it into where seniors get a voucher in a shop and buy insurance. i think that's a terrible idea. i am set against it and i will pose it as firmly as i can. the issue is the same with anthem or any other payment mechanism. hospital and medical costs are going up faster than inflation. but we have to do is figure out the different payment mechanisms which we are working on here in maine under the affordable care act. there is one in portland and one

in lewiston and one in modesto where we are starting to pay for health and prevention. i think that is the secret that we have to go to, and it is happening and we are already seeing results. i talked to the director of the hospital and we are releasing results to bring the cost down and that's the way we will stay steve woods thank you, cynthia. the issue at all of these health care issues is that we have one side of the equation and we have what represents health care. we have medicine and treatment. we have institutions and on the other side we have patience.

the issue that i believe is in the 42% in the middle. it is the administrative costs. we should not do it on the backs for a most vulnerable americans. if we have the will to do what we need to do in terms of health care health care reform, then we can make it more efficient, but we shouldn't do it and we shouldn't politicize it. andrew ian dodge entrée. dodge: smaller companies can afford to get them approved. okay. >> moderator: i dishonor my people that i would agree with

what angus king said. i would add that we could go a long ways to stabilizing medicare by reviewing medicare part d and allowing medicare to negotiate certain drugs. i care for all it's an excellent program. we do need to make some changes, but it's important. you can thank your democratic party for that. >> we have to have and be able to find a way to actually have tax reform to pay for things we want the government to pay for. the way to do that is to have a sales tax, which will also help in the global economy. >> moderator: we are talking about super pacs. outside groups giving millions of dollars without accountability.

if your answer is no, tell me how you would see this? stevewoods: special interests ag money in big and big politics, all the pressures that come from that in these big lobby groups, you need to make sure that you're voting for a candidate and you don't accept that money. i am sitting with everyone i was and we want to everyone wants to find out how i came to the conclusions on my issues, and if you want a response me, go to my website, that is the best way to do it. i would like to know about what you feel from the people. not having special interest in super pacs.

if anyone else wants to take the money, go for. but it's up to the people who decide they're going to vote for. >> moderator: okay, angus king? king: this super pac business is awful. i think we ought to end it. there is a bill that congress calls to disclose that. one of the problems now is we have no idea where all this money is coming from for all these ads. that is the specific thing that the congress can do. the next step may be a constitutional amendment. the supreme court has ruled that this is valid. the only way to change that is to change the supreme court or change the constitution. this super pac money is ridiculous. here's a flyer that i got today or yesterday in the mail, promoting cynthia dill. it says i'm a big supporter of george w. bush and he would be

surprised to find that since the i campaign for john kerry in 2004. it comes to me from safe nation pac. marietta, georgia. they are sending a flyer to democrats trying to convince them to vote. i think the whole thing is ridiculous. the rule should be only residents should be able to contribute. ..

it's the political and industrial complex here in maine and nationally. i do think we need to get back to the principle that when people want to run for office whether it is here, the local office, county, state, they should be able to have a st dialogue with the electorate and be able to say vote for me, here's what i stand for. people shouldn't come in from atlanta say and don't vote for in this king or send the data or steve. >> moderator: i'm going to in the secretary to the question for the secretary. >> what we are talking about is free speech. dubai like the ads? i'm sure some of the people don't like them either but the fact of the matter is we get ourselves wrapped around the axle on this issue. what we should be focused on is doing things to cut spending in this country, doing things to get the regulation under control and to grow our economy. the average person caught they

are wondering how your current pay their mortgage and how they are granted to their taxes and send their kids to the university of maine and that's the discussion we should be having, not whether or not somebody from georgia or washington sending in. we stand on the record. mine has been examined and everyone has been examined and you have to stand up and deal with it. this is a serious job that we are going after right now and there are going to be very difficult decisions that have to be made. to wring our hands and cry about who is saying what about whom on the playground. >> you claim this is about free speech, the billionaires' kunkel -- we should be talking about issues that matter. not whether or not steve is offended triet >> moderator: let move on to tax is not to create a lively

conversation for the americans who don't believe the tax burden is fairly distributed. for example the lower rate than people on the job what do you think is a fair percentage of your income to pay for taxes and keep in mind we have five minutes left so we want to get everybody to answer and let me start with you. individuals across the board should play flat tax, no more. that's the way to keep us competitive and we are against the taxation because it is unfair. >> moderator: mr. dalton, go ahead. dalton: the tax system is a dysfunctional and we shouldn't have an income tax situation. we need to go to a different tax system, sales tax, fair taxes the way to go to the corporate income tax should be replaced by the sales tax because the income tax is not something these other countries have, and it makes us uncompetitive globally. please take a look at my website. i think a tax system is complete reformation. i'm the only candidate in the

race that supports candian obama's proposal to what extent pushed tax cut making about to hundred $50,000. i think we have the effect giving subsidies to oil and gas and corporations who don't need it and we could impose a financial transaction tax and to be responsible for the collapse of our economy. we have to stabilize everybody's paying in a share and the corporations pay more. i agree with warren buffett. >> moderator: we want to get everybody into the it secretary summers? summers: we need to make sure our taxes are low as they can possibly be. it can get jobs if we aren't selling a product as a company we don't want to raise the prices we need to figure out why we aren't selling a product and lowered it to work on volume.

he's made a passionate campaign that is the worst thing we can do even president obama two years ago because would draw a wet blanket on the economy. we can't do that we have to take the taxes low and expand job opportunities. >> moderator: governor king? king: nobody wants to raise taxes. the situation that we have with the debt is such that we have to look at revenues as well as taxes as simply impossible to do it. i'm engaged in a project which is a bipartisan led by alan simpson and a democrat from north carolina to find a bipartisan solution to the deficit and with the proposed and eliminating the loopholes, deductions and exemptions and actually reducing the rates that are taking 8% of the revenues that generated by the process

and putting it event begins to the debt that is proven and responsible, nobody wants to raise liked simpson-bowles will be likely to solve the problem and i think what we will end up with is a fair tax system and lower rates across the board and more fairly distributed among our people >> moderator: mr. what's? woods: it has a common sense, it's not, and arithmetic, they're have to be revenue and cuts. i appreciate secretaries and was talking on this issue but for some reason grover norquist pledged he's not even allowed to talk about revenue even if we believe in his heart, even if we showed him a spread sheet to show a sign a pledge. >> if you are down in the polls. >> it doesn't just finish here,

cynthia. there has to be tax reform, corporate tax rates should be adjusted but i do think the bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be looked at and should be removed america is in a crisis i do support paying more taxes of because i want to or it couldn't use the money or it wouldn't be personal the advantages revenue can't be done. >> moderator: av reminder before we go, go to wstw.com. tuesday november 6th and of course join us on that night for the special election coverage both on the air and online, wmtw.com. i would like to thank all the candidates. thank you for bearing with me and the co-sponsors and the

university of southern maine. get out and vote obviously, everybody of their. for all of you at home, thank you for watching as well and to all of you watching on wmtw.com have a wonderful night, everybody in have a great weekend. we all deserve it. enjoy. >> we recently visited the political report where we got an overview of some of the key senate races and what they're looking for on election night. >> first the house in general, what are you looking at in the balance of power between democrats and republicans? >> right now maybe democrats picked up a couple or a handful of seats, but nowhere near the

20 fight seat that they would need to restore nancy pelosi as the speaker of the house and there are a couple of big factors, one of them is redistricting that republicans build a good job and some key states such as pennsylvania and ohio of taking some normally competitive seats and tougher takeover targets of pulling them off the map of the battleground map and the other challenges that democrats are playing defense. they have a number of all of the republicans and it becomes a game of a member of congress they might lose one of their own. all of them has broken even instead of eating that 25 seat game that the new. >> we will come back to this in a moment but let's talk to that individual basis and begin with upstate new york outside of buffalo. kathy when a special election for the democratic seat in new york 27 to read >> you know, she is well loved in the democratic party because

of that special election but now she is facing a more republican district than she faced before. she's facing chris collins, the county executive, who can be a polarizing figure he would say i'm not here just to go along to get along and right now i think that the republican nature of the district is probably dragging her down, even though she might be the more personable candidate in the race. >> congressman alan west, a tea party republican trying to keep his seat for the second term. >> the former congressman of pennsylvania this is one of the most expensive, nasty and closest races in the country, and i think that the district by the numbers is a very competitive, but alan west is tenacious, right now he is running probably three times the amount of television ads that in normal candidate with a run at this stage, and even though he's polarizing and he's also a

strategic. this is a former military officer, and patrick murphy has a tough task i think in coming out across the line. >> interesting reason utah, the republicans come she's african-american and getting a lot of attention >> is survived the republican wave in the district, but i think that's the republicans didn't really spend a lot of money trying to defeat him in 2010, but this time around they redrew his district so he has more territory to him and he's running against a very unconventional candidate running as a conservative woman it's tough to stereotype or is politician. the other thing we have to remember is mitt romney is going to be the top of the ballot. john mccain got over 60% and betting that we could see it from me get 70% in the district and that raises the threshold of

the crossover vote that jim matheson needs to survive. i think it is a tossup to overcome that top of the ticket impact. >> what's the west and nevada in the third congressional district. >> the congressmen in this type of district the democrats should be challenging if they want to win the majority this is a suburban los vegas clark county district place where they should be doing well, and right now the democrats are having a tough time going after the democratic nominee as a former leader in the state house, but what is interesting is even though he has an influential position in the state legislature he's talking about his record as a firefighter and they are not even mentioning that he's a politician because that legal isn't one that you want to have come so he has the advantage, but if democrats are having a better light than we would expect would be in this district.

>> california is a solid list for the president but a couple of interesting house races in that state. >> california is handicap we can almost ignore the steven of its largest state there have only been one or two seats that even had a chance of one party taking over the other. but with the legislative redistricting commission and the top two primary some of the congressional map has been turned on its head so we are watching almost a dozen races in california with the democratic incumbents, open seats and the need to sweep the races in california to get even close. >> and incumbent is in danger in maryland, roscoe bartlett, republican. ischemic roscoe bartlett is a victim of a democratic redistricting in that he used to represent western maryland and now comes all the way down into montgomery county and the washington,

washington d.c. suburbs. and he's a businessman is a prisoner of the state legislature with the space nature is it to be tough for bartlett even though bartlett has an environmental street to him that doesn't make him a typical republican but i think that he is facing a different electronic that is wealthy and they're going to be tough to keep the majority. >> , john tierney getting a lot of attention with some allegations of gambling and offshore money they may have made for him and his family. what's happening up there? >> he is in a lot of trouble. we believe that he is an underdog in the race and i think it is for a couple of different reasons. one is that he does have this cloud surrounding him. his brother-in-law, his wife served some time for misconduct and i think that is a cloud that

is part of his problem. the other challenges that he is facing she is an openly gay republican who isn't easily tied to the tea party label. he is an extreme conservative when he's an openly gay republican and republicans have run a good campaign, and i think that it would be a surprise now if he comes back to congress. >> their rematch in new hampshire one. >> new hampshire one between friend who is now a republican defeat republican, and this man he defeated in 2010. new hampshire if you are only going to watch one state and you want the most bank for your bochner hampshire is the place to go because it is a presidential battleground the congressional districts are tossups the first district and second district and also an open governor's race that's why open and competitive as well and the congressional races are tossups and i wouldn't be surprised if

she porter came back to congress. >> what about pennsylvania 12, who is in the race? >> first in pennsylvania it is shocking that we aren't talking about more competitive races we aren't even talking about eastern pennsylvania where the republican members of congress should be vulnerable or normally vulnerable with the western p.a., the congressmen won a member versus member primary against a fellow congressman jason altmire and now he faces the republican who narrowly lost jason altmire in 2010 and this is a republican district and just talking with democratic strategists said the only thing keeping him in this race is that johnstown face could turn out it's been so strong for the congressman before he passed away and that is the only thing keeping this race competitive or else republicans will probably already have this. >> what else are you keeping a close eye on? what it would be on election night. >> well, i think looking at

nevada we talked about the third district, but the fourth district, which was almost to assume the democrats would win and the democratic nominee republican is in the game and he lost in the southern primary in 2010 but that is the type of district the democrats would need in order to do well but overall the election might i'm going to be watching the seats that republicans have or even lean republican and the reason is that is how far democrats to start defeating the republican members to get close to the majority. >> so they are not going to have enough. >> let me conclude with this point as you look at the balance of power and you look at where the president is from and where governor romney is wrong. will there be dovetails for the house seat in the state by state

battles? >> well, i think -- for the presidential race it is a debate to polarize the electorate and almost hurts the potential republican crossover voters the democrats may have gotten, and it just the art rushed over to the republican side, and so i think the presidential race is important for both sides. >> mechem of the political report, thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> republican representative chris gibson debated julia in the district house race. new to redistricting the

congressman, a former army colonel moved from the 28 to the 19th district. he was the chairman for the county democratic committee before resigning earlier this year to run for congress. posted by wmha this the date is 55 minutes. >> hello everyone and welcome to a special edition of new york now. i am matt ryan. tonight it is brought to you by wmht and we want to welcome you was in the greater capital region and hudson valley as well as those of you watching on wfkg. it's time to welcome the 19th district candidates, congressman chris gibson and julian schriebman. [applause] >> i will be your moderator this evening and i am joined by three

of the best reporters in the business. starting off from the times union, jimmy. next to jimmy, karen dewitt, and my co-host on a new york now who is also the state editor for the times union. he will be taking your questions at home. that's right. we are loving you the chance to have an active role in tonight's debate. if you want to ask a candidate something you can do so by logging on to the facebook account, just ask away or on a twitter our handle is that nynow to read and we will be taking regular e-mails. our address is nynow@wmht.org. we will have those on the screen during the program. let's go over the rules. each candidate will be given two minutes for their opening statement after that we will begin questioning to beat each candidate will have 90 seconds to answer while the other can offer up to a 452nd rebuttal. if a panelist believes an answer needs clarification from one of

the candidates, they can then ask a follow-up question to the individual who will then have 30 seconds to clarify. we will alternate questions to each candidate after the moderator's initial one. now before the date we flipped a coin to determine the order for our opening and closing statements. first up is mr. schriebman. good morning and you're two minutes starts now. schriebman: thank you, matt, jimmy, karen mukasey. all of you for being here and to wmht and the times union for sponsoring. i am running for congress to be a waste for our middle class families. i grew up here in the hudson valley to meet my dad was a world war ii veteran who didn't even finish high school. my mom's small-business support of our family growing up. and the fact is we struggled. we struggled from month to month and year to year to pay the bills. like so many families in upstate new york continues to struggle. congressman gibson was supposed to be a voice for us but he hasn't been. instead, his priorities have

been voting to end the guarantee of medicare. to defund planned parenthood and restrict a woman's right to choose, to weaken nuclear safety while pushing for a new nuclear plant here and to cut off educational opportunity like pell grants and head start to beat i know how important those opportunities are. i was the first and my family to go to college. and i couldn't have gone without a pell grant or without student loans. but because of the proceeding that opportunity, i have been able to spend most of my career and nonpartisan public service. at the cia, i was able to work on a case called the united states versus osama bin laden, the prosecution of board members of al qaeda for bombing our embassies in east africa. i became a prosecutor myself, helping to make our communities safer including here in the hudson valley. violent crime, drug dealing, domestic violence. now, i am blessed to be raising three little boys with my wife, just a few miles from the house where i grew up to where my mom

still lives. i want to make sure that that next generation, for all of our families have the same opportunities to live the american dream that i had. that means focusing on the middle class, not on the tea party agenda. tonight and you are going to your congressmen gibson talk a lot about being moderate and looking for a bipartisan solutions. but when you look past the rhetoric to the record, you will see that he's never a moderate when it matters. >> moderator: thank you, sir. mr. gibson, you have two minutes. gibson: thank you and good evening everyone. the past two years i've had the high honor of serving the united states congress, and tonight i am asking for your support as i seek reelection. you know my story. i grew up around here in a working-class family. i was the first in my family to go to college and i went in the army for 24 years rising to the rank of colonel and a brigade commanded the 82nd airborne. i let some of our local he rose in battle in iraq. i retired two years ago to run for congress to grow this economy and to move us back to a

balanced budget over time so future generations have the same traces and freedoms that we have had. i focused on local issues and i will tell you it has been a great honor and privilege to serve you republicans, democrats and independents alike to that i've worked on store relief, broadband, lyme disease and helping small businesses grow. this election offers a clear choice. my opponent has run a nasty and deceptive campaign. although it isn't likely that he has traveled to your town, you like we have seen his nasty commercials. senior citizens snarling at me, they don't even talk that way. and he claimed i voted to end medicare and it's been designated the law of the year and he's made other false claims as well saying that i voted to deny women the right to an abortion even in the case of rape and incest. this isn't true. i am not even for overturning roe v. wade. he can't be trusted. in terms of judgment he criticized me for voting for a

bipartisan budget. democrats and republicans working together to grow this economy and spending. for all the talk about budgets and he will control it tonight he's been running for congress for a year and never told us what budget he supports. he has no plans just false attacks. to send him to washington would be a big mistake. we already have too much partisanship. i can bring people together to get things done and i look forward to this debate. thank you. >> moderator: thank you, congressman gibson. before we went on the air we flipped a coin to see would get the first question and it goes to mr. schriebman. and this kind of talks a little bit about it, gives him just said. there's a lot of people watching tonight with in the capitol region, the hudson valley, anywhere else in this vast district. this is the first real opportunity to see the both of you kind of inaction. the television market and the district have been inundated with campaign ads from both you -- both of you guys as well as some paid by others. i want to give you this opportunity to tell the audience

a few things. some of this negative campaigning against you has been fair when it comes to your voting record, in your case, mr. gibson, or your character. mr. schriebman coming to get the question. 90 seconds. schriebman, thank you, matt. he raised an important distinction between the criticism. i'm running every tough campaign and i make no apology for that because the issues are very important. but you will not hear me criticize the congressmen personally. unfortunately, the congressman's friends in washington are so concerned that they may lose an important ally for their agenda that they have run a running is and in fact absolutely false ads attacking my character. so false that after just a day or two they were forced to take them off the air. if this is a critically important decision as folks need to make a decision based on the fact that is what my campaign is based on, insuring that folks know the truth and the congressman's record and the different alternatives that i

offer. the fact is, congressman, you voted to restrict a woman's right to choose and you have voted to criminalize abortion even in the cases of rape and incest. let's vote on h.r. 3803. you voted to end the guarantee of medicare and to make it harder for folks to have access to critical health services by voting to end more than 40 years of bipartisan commitment to women's health care and voting to end support for planned parenthood and title ten funding. my campaign depends upon you, the voter, knowing the truth. that is what our campaign is focused on, and we will continue to be focused on that, and by sorry the other side decided to make false negative attacks. >> moderator: , gives him, you have 35 seconds. gibson: i've kept my campaign very positive. i can't control the outside abs but that was actually put back up, and you know, when we say that was taken down and is actually put back up, and it is

part that you don't talk about much. you were a lawyer that worked for a new york city firm and you defended and alleged white collar criminals. so, i would think that he would be proud of talking about that. in terms of your ads, you know, look it's been designated by the public of fact in non-partisan fact check organization as the ally of the year that i ended medicare and on abortion let me just tell you this, that was the late term abortion bill. its new york state's bill. i did not vote to criminalize abortion, and i will tell you it is a lie. ..

>> this expands out to medicare advantage. 25% of seniors currently have that's where they pick a plan that the trustees will pay the premium on and we go forward. it is federally guaranteed, regulated, then, you know, as i said, 25% of seniors have it now. my opponent has said that that ships a $400. it doesn't shift $6400 to

seniors. the other concept that i supported was an accountable care framework. i supported that this year. here's the important point. we have to work together to get this done. i mean, we cannot have the kind of campaign that my opponent is running. it wasn't even an authoritative language. it is very disappointing that you don't have a plan yourself. has it been scored by the cbo? hasn't been said that it will phase out medicare? i don't think so. >> moderator: mr. julian schriebman, you have 45 seconds. schriebman: we should take a lesson from the doctor's creed, which is first, do no harm. the congress has voted to shorten the lifespan of this. whenever he wants to say, "the

wall street journal" itself said let's be clear about what the lines are with the ryan budget. you can talk about procedures in washington. fact is when you vote for a budget, that is your plan. in fact, the congressman came into the district and embrace the ryan budget and said that is my plan. here's what that plan does. it takes medicare, which is currently guaranteed, and it ends the guarantee. voted to raise the age, which independents able raise the cost. >> moderator: thank you very much. we have to move on to our next question. let's go to karen dewitt from new york state public radio. >> moderator: my question is about the fiscal cliff. we didn't hear a lot about that in the presidential debate. early next year, the bush era tax cuts expire along the sequestration. it essentially means $100 billion of mandatory across-the-board cuts in many programs that affect new yorkers. if elected or reelected, how

would you seek to avoid this impending fiscal cliff? the question goes to mr. julian schriebman. schriebman: thank you, karen, this is symbolic. this fiscal cliff that we face. symbolic of the dysfunction that we have seen in washington since the tea party crashed by 2010, including one chris gibson arrived in congress. we have seen issue after issue that should be resolved in a bipartisan way, simply disappear in partisanship and dysfunction. when it comes to the fiscal cliff, one thing important to recognize is that the budget plan the congressman just probably said he voted for last year, it actually has deeper and more significant cuts in critical programs while putting

an enormous burden on the taxpayers. republican or democrat, we need to bring an approach that says we all need to work together on this. we have to put our fiscal house in order. there is no other option. they voted for two different budgets. they have one important thing in common. they both place the burden of getting our house in order squarely on the backs of the middle class, where it does not belong. >> moderator: chris gibson, what is your rebuttal? gibson: let me just say that it is not true. his comment on medicare is also not true. it is the lie of the year and i did not vote to raise the voting age. this issue on the fiscal cliff is such an important issue of our time. you know, i have actually voted for a plan that will avoid the

fiscal cliff. the cooper latourette bipartisan budget, which was commissioned to save $1.2 trillion in pro-growth conference at tax reform. it helps get america back to work. getting those $300 billion back. it also commits to disciplined spending levels the democrats and republicans can agree upon. there is too much partisanship down in washington dc. this is a chance for us to come together and i am disappointed in my opponent. >> moderator: we will turn it over to casey siler who is monitoring questions from viewers at home. >> moderator: we have received a great deal of questions. this goes for you, chris gibson, it is from bruce tuckerman that asks, in your time in politics, name one significant achievement that was a result of working with a member of the opposite

party. gibson: let me just start with the broadband view. i had a situation where my leadership was going to zero out the loan program. i thought that was the mistake. i said that we need this program here. they said that we have ari made up our minds, and i said i will bring an amendment to the florida house of representatives and we will overturn this. and they said that we will send an e-mail out and you can try, but you will fail. i worked with people on both sides of the aisle. anyone who had supported broadband in the past, when it came time for the vote, we had 90 republicans and 91 democrats and we made a bipartisan effort. i have worked with senator gillibrand in nanotechnology,

that resulted in great competitive values and i have worked with peter welch to ensure we had funding that was fema and money for farmers and roads and bridges and that was a bipartisan effort. with peter welch. i can tell you that i absolutely believe, that even though you hear all the negative news today, folks can come together -- we have come together and we did it in transportation and we did with fair trade agreements and we did for other loss. i will continue to do that because that is my responsibility. >> moderator: julian schriebman, do you have a rebuttal? schriebman: absolutely. we need to make a commitment for a public and private partnership. the congressman brags that funding for rural broadband is lower now than was four years ago. unfortunately, when it comes to bipartisanship, it's just not there. for example, look at the

violence against women act. something that i recognize is so important. this has been renewed regularly on a bipartisan basis and many republicans, not the congressman, decided it would be an extreme limit with this party to push for a narrow version that let women now. this is not a push to bipartisanship that is successful. when it comes down to the issues that really matter to folks like medicare, the congressman has no record and no credibility. >> moderator: our second question and we are back to casey siler. >> moderator: we have been getting a lot of questions on hydro- cracking. one from when the topic came up that is it safe to crack? schriebman: when i think about

any policy issue that i could be called upon to vote on, the evidence that we have seen, there is a significant risk to our economy if we go in that direction. i have spoken to many small businesses across this district. we are very concerned that cracking comes to new york, the livelihood will be put at risk. out in cooperstown, the quality of the water it is put at risk and it may not be able to stand up to the big employer in our region. when we look at our energy future, we have better options than cracking here in upstate new york. the congressman has voted to weaken nuclear safety while promoting nuclear plants. when it comes to safety, it should give all of the voters great rates. we have tremendous options, right now in this region when it comes to renewable and alternative energy. it should be the focus of our investment here given that the evidence is so significant for

the environment and the economy. >> moderator: you have a rebuttal? gibson: this is simply not true. the only vote i had was a chance to vote for her will. of course i would have supported us. when i told you is slightly untrue. it is flatly untrue. i regret that this is the way to canada proceeds. on the subject of cracking, we have to be confident that it protects our water and air and we need regulatory process to do that. i have not seen one here in new york. i think communities should be empowered. some may want to do and others

may not. >> moderator: we are going to go to karen dewitt with the question. >> moderator: i'm wondering if you support changes to the tax codes, for mortgage interest or deductions for state and local taxes or the federal income tax. what changes would you support? gibson: i'm on record for this one i voted for the bipartisan budget, cooper latourette. it is a progrowth tax reform. our code is complex and unfair. it is unfair because it favors multinational corporations. what we need to commit to is

going to protect the middle class, like mortgage and taxes and our health care expenditures and charities. you know, those kinds of things. in the bipartisan budget, we put everything else up on the table for bipartisan discussion so that we can close the loopholes that allow us to lower rates. when we lower the rates, that's going to help small businesses grow and it's also going to help hard-working families. 96% of the take home pay for middle-class, if they see a rise at the end of year, they are going to spend 96% of it. this is a vitally important because it's not enough just to help small business in a place to go. to recapitalize. you need a demand for the product. that is why progrowth tax reform that helps the middle class is so vitally important. my opponent doesn't even support the bipartisan budget.

the national journal has me at the center and he is way out here on the left. schriebman: the only thing bipartisan about the proposal that he is championing is that it was rejected on a bipartisan basis overwhelmingly. in part because $2 trillion of additional taxes on the middle class taxpayers back. the congressman has also endorsed the paul ryan budget, which doubles down on george bush's failed tax policies. an enormous tax giveaways while cutting needed programs like pilgrims and medicare. it is not the right solution. it makes a real difference for the middle class. that includes allowing the bush tax cuts to expire. it means allowing hedge funds and ensuring that hedge fund managers pay tax on their income as income and ensuring that we have tax relief for small businesses and middle-class. >> moderator: our next question

is from jimmy vielkind of "times union". >> moderator: we want to create jobs and develop the inner structure and reliance production of foreign oil. do you support the constitution pipeline that will run 121 miles through delaware into newer? >> moderator: mr. schriebman, this is for you. you have 90 seconds. schriebman: absolutely. there are things that we can do that will create jobs and make us more independent and secure. one that i strongly favor is operating our electrical grid. we have an outdated grid. fixing that will give us jobs as well as improve our energy future. we have biofuels that should be

invested in, as well as solar and wind here in upstate new york. there are different local responses to it as to what it would would cover and i greatly favor a study about it to study the affected regions in what way they want to go in. that is equally true as far as something coming to our communities. many folks are concerned about where that would be located. whether it would be on their land. taken by eminent domain in a way that would have no positive impact. this is critically important to listen to the folks of the community and ensure we know what they want before pushing it on them. one way or another.

>> moderator: is on a pass, can you support the pipeline? gibson i guess because i am running for office, i am labeled as a politician. i'm never going to be one who tries to block to do something. i haven't seen enough detail to know whether that's the right plan. i think we need to know more about that when. >> moderator: thank you, sir. it was a simple question. schriebman: hard-working families are paying $4 a gallon for gasoline. it is a simple question on a budget. do you support one? we don't know. your description of the cooper latourette budget, we get that through growth. that is a bipartisan plan. your energy plan is concerning to small-business owners and farmers. not only do you have that you

want to raise taxes, this is going to cost a million jobs. have you talked to farmers? they don't support that. i support the keystone. i still have some concern. i do agree with julian on us. that we can be taking property from individuals. >> moderator: we are going to listen to some of your questions now. we are going to head over to casey siler from "times union." >> moderator: the first five years of life are critical for a child. what actions would you take to ensure that all children start school ready to learn. schriebman: thank you for that question. in fact, karen gordon comes to mind. she just recently retired.

she headed a head start program. each minutes program and i had a chance to tour and be with her for quite a long period of time and to see the instructions that were given to the parents who are going through. i think about my own childhood and growing up in a working-class family and i think that we live in a country that provide these kinds of opportunities. i was proud to vote for an increase to this program. but with the ryan budget, the senate passed no budget -- when they did not come and that meant that the ryan budget was dead. it didn't go anywhere. i am supporting a bipartisan budget that i believe will go somewhere. but we need to avoid the fiscal cliff and we can do that by this. would have start, i will tell you that i was proud to vote for that increase. when we look at education, and i

am a lifelong learner of the public schools myself, i am proud to have the endorsement of the teachers union. i think it is important that we support our schools and we have too much federal involvement and too many mandates and we are trying to have this culture of test taking -- this is all from the no child left behind act, but was a well-intentioned act out a mistake. we should remember that. schriebman: i am glad that the commerce and has had an opportunity to see what command is impact headstart has on young children, including children in the community. the simple fact is that he did vote to/the headstart program. that is a matter of fact. a matter of record. it was not some inadvertent part of a budget plan. that was the entire philosophy behind the ryan budget. a planet and our commitment to things like childhood education. it cut severely into medicare and give it away as benefits for

tax increases to the wealthiest among us. >> moderator: the question is really for both of you. but mr. schriebman, what is your view regarding harsh interrogation techniques as far as military service is? schriebman: i am absolutely opposed to torture. i appreciate the question i respect being asked. when it came to september 11, we

came together as a country afterwards and we were able to bond together by characteristics. what we recognize is that when we are less true to our values and we allow ourselves to be at risk, we should come all of us can absolutely make clear our rejection of torture and the techniques that come under that. we are a country that will be respected in the world and will continue to be a moral leader in the world as long as we uphold those values and those traditions. i very much believe we need to do this. gibson: if you don't have a budget, you can't reconcile. what does matter is the appropriation at the end of year. that is the money that goes to the various agencies.

i voted for a 400 million-dollar increase. i don't support torture. i don't support it from a values perspective and it doesn't square with who we are as a people. i would also tell you that i don't believe it's libel. the best way to get information from the enemy that you capture is to affiliate with them and put them in a position that they think it is in the best interest to share with you. it is the wrong thing to do for our values in the wrong thing to do from a technical perspective. >> moderator: thank you very much. we will head back to the panel now. >> moderator: approximately two years ago, congressman, you announce your support for building a nuclear power plant in what was the 20th congressional district. can you update us on the progress of that effort? do you think we should be building a nuclear plant here? gibson: for those that know me, you know, i check into things very thoroughly. my desire is very sincere.

i have pulled together with others but the idea that nuclear energy could be part of our future. the most important thing we need to do right now is work on transmission. we pay 20% more right here in the albany area. even though we have the same supply and demand dynamics. it's because we don't officially move energy. what i did than before. i have offered a bill with michael thompson, that provides

tax credits so that we can work updated grids and let me just say one last thing. again, i cut 6000 jobs of city workers and that is absolutely false. i no longer support the plant for here. because i don't think that it is feasible for us. but i will tell you that the president and senator schumer and senator gillibrand all support nuclear power. >> moderator: senator schriebman coming up 45 seconds. schriebman: that is the record, it is not something i can make up, it's not a matter of characterizing anything. it's a record that anyone can go and it wouldn't have taken me two years to figure out that the citizens don't want this choice for their future. the congressman didn't answer that question. he rejected that is the future

and decided that he thinks he wants to focus on something else first. the fact is that this is not for the future of upstate new york. we have nowhere to put those fuel rods at this point. we have much better alternatives here than the nuclear plant that he championed. >> moderator: we are going to head back to the panel and this question is for mr. schriebman from transport. >> moderator: the farm bill -- the congress and the president were able to agree and it could mean real economic hardship for newark's dairy farmers. what is it going to take to get this farm bill passed? >> you know, this is exactly symbolic. partisan and dysfunction in washington that we have seen the last two years ever since the tea party came to power.

we have farmers that are in serious need of good support. the absence of a farm bill simply says to them that we are not working hard enough for them the way that we should be. from my perspective, we talk about this district and it is so important to remain focused on the needs of. this is the district where we do not have agribusiness and corporate farming. the need for the office to focus on federal agriculture policies that respond to the needs of family farmers, focusing on ensuring that we are supporting farmers who are not focusing on the bad things. we need things that will help new york. that is what i will be focused on. when i have spoken to the farmers around this district,

they are not looking for special treatment. we do not want them to be subjected to the big guys out there in the midwest. >> moderator: we will get the farm bill done this year. gibson: i'm very proud to say that. we have security in there, we have dairy farmers not even covering the cost of production, and we are going to fix that with a margin that we are putting in there. a beginning farmer, to make sure that we inspire a new generation of farmers to come to the farmers. grants and loans and conservation programs. i am proud to say that i am a friend of the farmers. i even have the farmers union endorsement. they endorsed mostly democrats. earlier this week, i did an event on a farm in my comments in a press release in cinemas

outside of the district. he really ought to go check it out. you know, cap-and-trade, it's a big dead-end for farmers. >> moderator: this question goes to the cumbersome. >> moderator: commerce and gives incoming a question from bruce in stoneridge. does the u.s. have a special relationship with israel? gibson: it is a special relationship. as a young man, 26 years old in the persian gulf war, as we were making our move up towards iraq and having the opportunity for a few minutes to listen to the bbc and here that some of those were landing in israel, i will tell you that at that point, the student of history and i feared for regional and maybe even a world war. we asked israel at that moment to do something that no country should never ask another

country. that was not retaliate. israel did that. even though they had people killed and property destroyed. they did that for us. i cannot even adequately describe. i could not fully understand. i could certainly receive the information, but i could not understand. i will never forget that. it is a very special relationship and we share the same values and democratic process. israel is a friend that we will always be there for. proud to support the agreement that we have with them, making sure that they are prepared to defend themselves, just about $3 billion a year and 70% of it is spent right here. i think it is important with iran that we keep a very solid and solidified front with our friends overseas too. war is in no one's interest. it is not in israel's interest and it is not in our interest. we need uniformity and to have the sanctions work.

>> moderator: forty-five seconds, mr. schriebman. we have a special relationship with israel? schriebman: we do. as the congressman and i discussed at our last debate, when we are having such a sharp disagreement, it is important to pause and recognize that we do have areas of agreement. what the congressman has said about israel, i would echo those sentiments. we have a good, strong relationship there and there are good reasons for having that relationship. it's a democratic tradition of israel and a powerful ally that they have done for us in that region. >> moderator: a second viewer question. >> moderator: mr. schriebman, if you look at the coverage, a question of how you work with the opposite party. bills that are needed by the other party, how will you deal with bipartisanship?

schriebman: a person has committed to serving the community, people serving back here in our regional offices, ensuring that they are dedicated as a follow-up. regardless of whether the congressman is in control or whether the democrats come in control, working across the aisle, i hope that this election season, especially at the presidential level has been wonderful. getting nothing done in congress that we will learn from that, having spent most of my career in nonpartisan public service, i believe i have the experience and the temperament -- as i said

at the outset, we are reaching a sharp campaign. we care about the future. you haven't heard me say anything negative. that is the attitude that i will bring to serve this congress. >> moderator: mr. gibson? gibson: we serve republicans, democrats democratic people and independents. it's a high honor to do so. we are going to get this farm bill done and we are going to work together. we will get it done. we are going to work towards the bipartisan budget. the cooper latourette bipartisan

budget. when you were the party chair, you divided the party and you divided the county. >> moderator: the question from new york public state radio from karen dewitt. king: at the obama administration says that terrorists were behind the murder of christopher stevens and benghazi. should they have had better security, and what more should be done to fight terrorism? gibson: i cannot go into extensive details here, but it is already very apparent that, you know, we made mistakes. the president has come forward and took responsibly for that. clearly, more should have been done. what is important right now is we have mourns the losses of the families. we learn what happened. we must not rush to judgment. we certainly will find the perpetrators and they will be

brought to justice, those that do this. anything we learn from these experiences, i will tell you that i oppose military operations in libya last year. and i say that after careful consideration and thought. i have spent a lifetime in national security. i also think that we need to think and act differently. absolutely, we need the world's strongest military to be there and protect our way of life. we should be leaving with her strength. leading with our ideas and commerce and trade and diplomacy. to the extent that we are so involved militarily, we don't even know what's going on. that's the problem with libya. therefore we didn't have understanding which did not allow for prioritize actions. those are basic things i learned in the military and what i want to see us do is think and act differently. i believe we can be safer with

less money and then we can put that money into infrastructure and places that really counts. >> moderator: thank you mr. gibson. mr. schriebman coming to 45 seconds. schriebman: clearly, the united states should have done more to protect that mission. and the congress should not cut money for diplomatic security around the world. the fact that this was a tragic reminder of how dangerous a job is to serve a diplomatic post across these, i am very keenly aware of the dangers that they face and the incredible hard work it takes to find them responsible and bring these people to justice. i know that that is underway now. i am very confident that that will come to fruition and that is the right approach to take. >> moderator: heading back to our panelists, jimmy vielkind

has a question for mr. schriebman. >> moderator: the federal circuit court ruled that defense of marriage act is unconstitutional. you support this, that defines marriage as between a man and a woman, who affects new yorkers in same-sex unions. schriebman: i don't support that. i am proud to live in a state that recognizes marriage equality. the fact is the government should not be discriminating between people based on who they are. those of us in public service should be less concerned with two people go to bed with that night and whether or not they have a job to go to in the morning. and that is the responsibility of public service. to me, i believe that those who are married legally in new york should be able to live legally married throughout the united states. >> moderator: congressman gibson? gibson: dolma does allow states

to decide on this issue. it allows for states to make that decision on marriage. i do support doma. as long as it is the law of the land, we should be supporting it until the final word is that on that. we have the legislative branch and executive branch. now, with regard to gay marriage, let me just say that i support civil unions. but i do not support gay marriage because i think that should really be a religious question and decided by religious institutions. i do think that everyone is entitled to equal rights under the law, and that is why i support this. >> moderator: thank you, sir. we have time for another viewer question and we head back to casey siler. >> moderator: this came in my

e-mail. how do we structure the tax code and americans doing business in foreign companies in regards to capital gains. gibson: i talked about tax reform earlier in the need to make our code more simple and more fair and we have way too many loopholes that are taking advantage of multinational corporations. they have lawyers to find these loopholes. even if it is legal, we should change that because it's not helping to create jobs. everyday i meet with small business owners and those guys, a lot of them, they come fresh from their work. they can't afford to hire a bunch of lawyers to find loopholes. all these loopholes, and by the way, will companies and loopholes that allow companies, those things are primed to be closed. i would support closing them because that helps our small

businesses. what i am for is making sure that we execute this process. i have voted to extend the current rates for a year in support for manufacturers and farmers who will tell you that the opponents plan will crush the 700,000 jobs. he crushes 1.7 million jobs at a time when we are trying to grow jobs. so i want to extend now, just like i did with the payroll tax. i supported the president when he asked me to extend out of your. extended a year so that we can get comprehensive progrowth tax reform so we can close the loopholes, lower rates, and get the revenues that we lost when we ran into a recession. >> moderator: mr. schriebman, you have 45 seconds because this is another example of where the rhetoric has no resemblance to his record. the fact is that he stood in the way of the middle-class tax cut in order to demand another tax

rate break for the wealthiest among us. he voted to give $4 billion of taxpayer subsidies to big oil companies. the entire tax plan that he has been supporting between the ryan budget and the cooper latourette budget that places an enormous burden on the middle class has been to shift the burden onto middle class taxpayers and give greater benefits to the wealthiest corporations. that's the plan he supports because that is the plan he has voted for. >> moderator: we have time for just one more question. because we are near the end of the broadcast and the answer will be 60 seconds. the rebuttal will be 30 seconds. we have one more from the viewer at home from casey siler. >> moderator: mr. schriebman, you haven't yet figured that the economy. what is your plan? schriebman we need to look at

what works in an economy and have policies that promote economic growth and put people back to work. that is what worked in the 1990s. the bipartisan support under the clinton administration. we had a fair tax policy, we were putting millions of people back to work. they were working, earning money, spending money, that succeeded. then president bush came in and slashed taxes on the wealthy. our record surpluses turned into record debt. it takes us right back there again. the same as what mitt romney would do come in the same as what george bush did. that is the congressman's voting record. so we need progrowth policy to put people back to work and that is what is going to improve our economy. >> moderator: you have 30 seconds to respond. gibson: i didn't hear anything

that resembled this plan. i haven't heard this on my own. it is excellent. it is tax reform. it is regulatory relief. it is driving down health care costs by repealing and replacing well-intentioned things that don't work. energy, driving down problems and i voted very strongly, nine times to increase the clean air act. >> moderator: okay, only just 45 seconds to respond. each candidate will now have one minute for a closing statement. as determined beforehand, mr. schriebman, you will go first. schriebman: thank you all for participating. this election presents very clear choices. unfortunately, the congressman has repeated over and over again that i am somehow misrepresented

and saying things that aren't true. the fact is that my campaign depends entirely on folks knowing the truth about the congressman's record. i can say with great confidence the things that i am saying about his record because it is his record. you can go find it, and i encourage you to do so. the fact is that you voted today to end the guarantee of medicare and the fund planned parenthood, and yes, voted to criminalize abortion even in cases of rape and incest, and i'm disappointed that women's health care has not been a subject that has been brought up that he voted to/educational opportunity. the congressman's campaign, right now, is running an attack ad against me based on the lie of the year in 2010. >> moderator: thank you for tuning in. you have a chance for your rebuttal. gibson: my voting record was at

the center of the of the house. the "washington post" link me the third most independent republican and there is a clear choice. what you heard tonight, my opponent, he has no plan. he has no plan to grow the economy. he has no plan to deal with the deficit and no plan to save medicare. he really has no plan for anything except for raising taxes. that is not the kind of representation that they are looking for. you can hear this back and forth and it really comes down to trust. who can you trust? are you going to trust a lawyer that works for new york city that has a law firm that has trouble telling the truth? or someone who fought for you? someone who voluntary voluntarily gives his attention back. i am not looking to be a career politician. i have a record of bringing people together. i have a record for doing that. i look forward to your support on november 6, to keep working for you.

>> moderator: thank you, congressman. i want to thank you both for participating tonight. this is a valuable one hour in the 19th district for district for constituents. i also want to thank our panel. jimmy vielkind of wmtw-tv and karen dewitt and matthew ryan and casey siler of the "times union." visit our website for "new york now." we will catch up all of this friday night at 7:30 p.m. on our weekly version of "new york now." thank you for watching us here. have a good night and do not forget to vote on november 6. >> as part of c-span's coverage of senate, house and governor races around the country, we recently visited the rothenberg political report where we got an overview of some of the key senate races in what they are looking for on election night. >> jessica taylor is a senior analyst for the rothenberg

political report. let's talk about the senate and the big picture, the balance of power. were we looking at? >> i think that if we look at the ratings in most people's when we look at the landscape, even six months ago, democrats felt like they had the chance to get the seat once things kept getting closer, a couple of things shifted in the way we are looking at it now. olympia snowe left and that trigger playing field. democrats also have some very good candidate and force republicans really have to step up their game a little bit. missouri is a perfect example as well. one of the democrats even

privately thought they would come back for. the fallout in the way it was handled, they are really a bit fatal. on his own, he wasn't raising the money because he didn't have the campaign infrastructure that he needed to compete. the bottom line going into this. it is a no net change which means that they can tie it and it would be dependent upon who wins the presidency. but even a small gain for democrats is not out of the picture as well. >> let's begin with the state of maine. what's happening up there? >> this is one that we will see an independent senator join the ranks. i think the big question could be where it is the governor going to caucus.

democrats have not supported their own candidates and they have a very hands-off approach there. republicans tried to make this a tough case there. they boosted the numbers were they needed to be where the republican nominee could win and he saw a very similar thing happen in the state of maine. they had a baseline for this to happen. i think ultimately angus king is well known and well liked among democrats. now we have seen both sides. they were not attacking angus king, but they were not boosting him either.

i think that angus king is there for the long run. >> in neighboring massachusetts, one of the most hotly watched senate races. we have turned every one of their debates on c-span network. essentially, a dead heat. although polls showing elizabeth were moving slightly? >> yes, we gave elizabeth warren a slight edge in this. scott brown, special election, and the presidential turnout, the burden was even heavier on him. he needed to win well over the majority of independents and also about a quarter were 20% of democrats to help with the turnout. i think he's going to fall just short. i think he deserves credit for making this a close race for a

republican senator there, his favorability ratings remain high. and i think elizabeth warren should be considered a favorite going into election day. >> another race is the commonwealth of virginia. trying to recapture his old seat. >> they are very well known throughout the state. both are talking about their time as governor. the governor is very well-known and well-liked. i think both parties going into this felt like this is going to be a flip for whoever wins the presidency. when the cells take this lightly i think some people started reaping. i think that alan is running slightly ahead we still think it

is very neck and neck. i think it's going to be a very close margin and i think that we will use is very heavy turnout. and i think that even alan could fall short in northern virginia. but i think he needs to hold his own. i think it will be a very close one. >> to democratic senate incumbents seeking reelection, the polls show a significantly for bill nelson in florida and both democrats, republicans both targeting ohio and florida. >> conventional wisdom would say these are swing states. mitt romney is pouring a lot of money into the states. especially in the closing weeks,

and especially in ohio. candidates and campaigns really matter. sharon brown recognized that there will be a lot of money spent and we have seen favorability ratings really underwater and i think that has been difficult to overcome. even if he wins the state narrowly, i think that brown is more likely to outperform him. the same is true in florida. privately republicans don't think that he has been running the campaign and he struggled with money early on. he was sort of the last man left standing after everyone else pulled out. he has a very well known name their end hoping to get some of the good will of his father.

so they hope that he can make up and he is running a very expensive media market and we have not really seen that happen. knows and has a moderate image that he has been able to hold and he has also gone pretty lucky with some opponents in the past. 2006 was supposed to be another year that they targeted. so i think he got pretty lucky against the opponents. it will show the democratic ratings as we. >> money has not been a problem in connecticut. what is the latest in that senate race? >> early on i think republicans were very much confused. the female candidates spent $60,000 of her own money. and i think republicans do not write her off in a presidential

year, especially. and i think that chris murphy has struggled statewide and some tax problems and different things that he had to explain, i think they were able to take advantage of that. i think she reinvented herself in a much more favorable light, and i think she's had some good political ads as well. i think that murphy right now is sort of making up what needs to be. and now a huge lead they would that they would like has not really come through. but we will move this into the democratic category this week. >> depending on how close the senate is divided, montana and north dakota could very well determine whether the democrats keep the senate for republicans regain the senate. can you talk about these two states in these races? >> north dakota is an interesting one. this is one that i think the democrats hadn't gotten exactly the right candidate will we wouldn't even be talking about

this. the attorney general is very well-known and very well-liked. i think that has come through. rick berg found himself underwater during the 2012 campaign. he had to do a lot to remake his image. he got a lot of the early criticism especially for his advertising campaign. a lot of state people expect them to know the specifics. romney may win the state by 20 points. he is not going to win by double digits, but i think right now we have given congressman rick berg a very narrow edge.

>> in montana we have jon tester? >> yes, the makings of a three-way race. they have put money into a libertarian candidate and try to boost them enough to take away. they could just get it and also the jon tester can have a plurality -- what i would be watching for is how much they are getting as candidates. they are getting a substantial amount. the last two races to be called on election night in 2006, they were both for montana and virginia. i think that we are approaching another scenario of outcomes in montana. >> let's focus on three more states. you touched on missouri. what's going to happen when

clair mccaskill tries for a second term? >> i think that she is a political survivor. but not necessarily of her own making. i think that she has turned out some really good as. she has had survivors talking about this and again, republicans looking at this race, they try to get involved, even though i think it would have been not allowed including todd akin and mr. heller in nevada. but too much damage has been done in some ways. we are going to see clair mccaskill -- she won't win by double digits, but she will probably have a comfortable lead. >> let's talk about nevada.

>> i think that is one state where republicans are more worried about it early on. republicans could still win, but maybe narrowly. dean heller could pull it off. i think berkeley has hidden a slight hit in favorability ratings. i think he deserves credit for what has been a good campaign run it could have to do with a five or 6.1 not sure she will be able to pull this race off yet. it has been a while as we have seen this -- besar outside of the margin. >> a lot of money being spent in upstate. >> this is where democrats certainly work for it. the candidate, richard carmona,

he has a campaign dream and everything and he is a former surgeon general. i think by now we are seeing the states go back is not an overwhelming lean but obama and democrats are talking very early on. we actually saw mitt romney last night. and that speaks a lot to state that has a very large middleground population. it's a very slight edge, but he has had a few stumbles late in the game that have made it slightly difficult. again, republicans, this is a

state where they needed to use resources. we are breathing a little bit easier about it. >> always a surprise or two on election night. the potential of spices to see? >> i think pennsylvania has been on the radar. that's another one that we certainly didn't predict early on. tom smith, a million or coal executive, he really didn't take this race seriously. we see the presidential race tighten, but obama has been narrow edge. republicans are certainly helping the outside groups there. i think what we are looking for, we are seeing scott brown in massachusetts early on, we are

seeing the campaign, these early closing pools, it becomes very difficult for the republicans to even get through this. and republicans would be happy for a win. and democrats again give credit for getting good candidates in some of these races. they have made republicans and money there in places they didn't plan on. >> jessica, thank you so much. from the rothenberg political report. we appreciate it. >> obama and romney are campaigning today rte. battleground states urging voters to get the polls tomorrow. tonight, we will be live with the candidates other final campaign rallies. the president will be in des moines, iowa. mitt romney will be in manchester, new hampshire. live coverage gets underway at 10:50 p.m. eastern.

>> turn to c-span on election night and watch the results from the presidential race. we will have coverage of obama in chicago and mitt romney in boston. we are focused on some of the more competitive senate seats. plus, your reaction throughout the night by phone, e-mail, facebook, and twitter. live coverage begins at 8:00 p.m. eastern. next we take you to arizona for u.s. senate debate between republican jeff flake and democratic candidate richard carmona. they are vying for the senate seat left open by jon kyl. courtesy of kawc radio.

>> welcome to the debate on the campus on school of arizona, yuma. we will begin with 92nd opening statements from jeff flake and trento. they will take questions from a panel of journalists related to life outside the metropolitan areas. built into the schedule is an additional four minutes, should the moderator or panelists have a follow-up. we have news director anna chaulk, joyce lobeck and

michelle faust. joining us today are over 300 residents. they have agreed to respect the candidates and listened silently during the debate with the exception of right now. ladies and gentlemen, help me welcome congressman jeff flake and doctor richard carmona, congressman for the united states senate. [applause] >> gentlemen, thank you both for coming for this debate. let's get started with opening statements. we first start with doctor richard carmona. carmona: thank you for the

opportunity and welcoming us. the first response was yes, i will run. i will run as far away from washington as i can. i know how dysfunctional it is having been here as your general of the united states. what i realized is that really is the reason that i need to step up and run again. because my grandmother and mother were still alive, they would be disappointed if i did not accept the responsibility. this is my first series of debates. i'm still learning the process. i am running because i have benefited from this american infrastructure of opportunity. starting out as a poor hispanic kid of immigrant parents, i experienced hunger and homelessness and dropped out of high school. the only thing before me was uncertainty. but i was able to become a special forces soldier, and get a ged.

i was lucky enough to get into junior college that had an open enrollment program for combat veterans. i use my g.i. bill to become a doctor, a cop, a professor, and in one generation, become surgeon general of the united states. i am running to ensure that all children can attain the american dream just as i did. thank you. >> moderator: congressman, the clock is right down here in front of you. flake: thank you all. the community here at the college. we appreciate this opportunity. just two weeks ago, my wife and i received a wonderful call. the best appearance can get. our oldest son informing us that we are grand parents for the first time. aidan jeffrey flake was born to a family in the greatest country in the world, but he was also $150,000 of debt -- that is his chair, the 16 trillion-dollar federal debt, that all of us

collectively hold. that is a transcendent issue of our time. that is generational theft for that kind of burden onto kids and grandkids. we need somebody for the senate who is willing to stand up to either party, whoever is in charge, against this overspending. that has been my record in the house. that is the record that i plan to take the senate. that's that is why the state's largest newspaper after meeting, endorsed my candidacy. we are here debating arizona issues and that is important because the seat is currently held by senator jon kyl, who is made that has focus. this is a consequence of arizona being 85% publicly owned. all these things are important and we need to make sure that whoever has the seat understands and will advocate for them. thank you for having me here. >> moderator: thank you. let's begin the questions for the debate. the candidates will have 90

seconds to respond in a 32nd rebuttal. the first is for congressman jeff flake. >> moderator: thank you so much for being here. we are going to begin with water allocation. water allocation has not been legislated by the federal government in more than 50 years. since that time, populations of state sharing rights have changed drastically, as you know. arizona is already 99% of the allocation it has, it uses a comment has promised more to the indian reservations in the northern part of the state. what do you plan to do to ensure that our water rights are protected by minimizing the environmental effects. flake: the allocation is always

going to be an issue. that is why it is important that we have people that are willing to advocate. sitting to our west as california. they have a 53 member delegation ours is just an 11 member delegation. so you have to fight hard and you have to make sure that our water doesn't go there. also here in yuma, arizona, there are always concerns that there will be allocations within the state and that maricopa county and the urban areas will get water this year. i promise to you and everyone here is to ensure that we make sure that allocation comes here to yuma and elsewhere, and that when there are changes, they are deliberate and with stakeholders involved all the way through. water is the lifeblood of arizona. we have to make sure that it remains. and that we also have allocations that are reflected by populations and also by agriculture and some of the traditional uses in arizona. thank you for the question. >> moderator: you have 90

seconds, doctor richard carmona. carmona: this is a great question to start on. the congressman and i do agree on issues, like water. if someone does stand up and fight for our water supply, that hbs. where we do disagree is where congressman jeff flake wants to mine for uranium in the grand canyon watershed which has the potential for putting 25 million people at risk who use the water everyday. there is no monetary benefit to the state when we do that. you won't be able to get anything there, and i'm surprised that he would risk putting these people at risk by potentially contaminating the water, and we know that this is true. i am really concerned that you would jeopardize 25 million people by really aggressively trying to move legislation to allow uranium in the watershed

area when we know would be deleterious to people here. it is not disney. it is the arizona republic, the daily star, the son in las vegas actually said that your actions were shameless. i think that is something the media let. >> moderator: congressman, you have 30 seconds. flake: i'm concerned that my opponent does not seem to understand arizona geography. we are talking about mining in the arizona strip, not the grand canyon. what i am trying to do is protect the constructed agreement, the bipartisan agreement called the arizona wilderness act that was negotiated and barry goldwater on one side and mr. udall on the other, the chamber of commerce on the other, that protected the grand canyon and also recognized that we would meet economic activity in the arizona strip. that is when trying to protect. >> moderator: doctor carmona,

you have 30 seconds. carmona: there is a difference of opinion but what we are talking about is the aquifer. we are talking about the watershed area that extends far beyond canyon. any money you do there is potentially deleterious because it can contaminate the aquifer that ultimately brings water down. so i was very careful to say that this is the grand canyon watershed risk and that the risk to all of us because 25 million people rely on that aquifer in the watershed to provide water for this area, as well as california and other areas. >> moderator: thank you, doctor. a quick look at a lot of topics now. the next question is from transit. >> moderator: high unemployment remains a stubborn and key concern around the united states. particularly affecting the rural areas hard. imperial county has the highest rate in the nation month after month with 25% of 30% of its workforce looking for jobs. what ideas you have for improving the economy and

creating jobs? in particular, for rural areas. would this be a top priority for you? carmona: yes, it is a top priority for me. we have to do something about reforming our tax structure. the tax code is killing small business. small businesses are being taxed at 35%, and that is not sustainable in this environment today. we have to change the loopholes at the top because big companies like ge and others -- are the top 35%. he needs to be transparent so people understand. first and foremost, we have to create an environment that small businesses can thrive in. when we look at the uniqueness of the border that is different from the tax reform that's needed for the whole nation, we need comprehensive immigration reform. as i travel the border and meet with the folks in the ranchers, we have a workforce problem because of our immigration system that is broken and we can't get workers to go back and forth. it takes hours to come back and

forth. these problems create an impediment to congress. we have to be able to provide a workforce that can look back and forth very easily. right now, we are not able to do that because of all of the impediments that are thereby not having an effective comprehensive immigration policy. so that becomes an economic issue as well. because the workers here who want to work, there are not enough of them. the workers that came from across the border to take care of our branches and take care of the agricultural industry, making the back-and-forth like they want to. we desperately need immigration people because it's an economic problem. thank you. flake: you have posed a great question. unemployment around the country is at about 8%. in yuma, anywhere between 18% and 30% depending on which gauge

you use. that is unacceptable. completely unacceptable. you see it here. we have had federal agencies, whether it is environmental or health care regulation or labor regulation, this is all-consuming. one of the biggest job killers out there is the president's health care plan. i just spoke to a small business this morning from yuma, arizona. he has 44 employees. he is planning on hiring for more, and that is it. you know why? if he gets to 50 employees, then he starts getting fined for not providing the health care insurance for the president and others think that he occupied. that means fewer jobs. he said he will pay overtime and make them work saturdays because he can't hit 50. you see the same thing happening with small businesses franchises

fast food restaurants are moving people from full-time to part-time because they don't want to hit that threshold. that is a huge job killer, and we have to repeal it. that is a commitment that will make to you. when i get to the senate, i will vote to repeal the president's health care plan. carmona: on any issue, it is always blaming the other side. congress isn't working because it's so interesting that people can have a rational discussion. the fact is we are spending 18% of our gdp on health care. when i look at health care plan for us and i have been critical of it as well. we need a better business plan. the congressman's plan is to resent it and we still have 50 million people without insurance and we will have one of those people coming into the market and it will be transferred to all of you. all of you will pick up the cost for the people who don't have

insurance. so we can do that. that's not a plan. that is really disturbing is because the public will be shouldering this burden. the doctors and hospitals will pick up more uncompensated pair. >> moderator: your response? flake: we have to repeal the present health care plan. when this plan was passed, it was promised it that it would lower premiums about $2500 per family. it has raised premiums by about $2500 per family. what is in the future? not just for those who pay premiums. but also those taxpayers of the state level. when that burden comes here come the problems with the state has had with the budget will be multiplied. we can't go can go that direction. we desperately need health care reform. but we cannot go the direction of the president's health care plan has taken us. >> moderator: i'm going to take another moment and ask you both, should you be elected, would you be willing to put the weight of your office behind finding out

what the causes are in the solutions to the high unemployment are here in the county? >> most definitely i would be able to do that, and i would be looking forward to doing that. but i want to just finished addressing the issue on health care because it really does play into unemployment as well. congressman flake's plan is really not a plan. it transfers risk. the fact is that we, the people, are still going to shoulder the burden. hospitals and doctors will get more uncompensated care. that is likely that both parties have gotten it wrong. they are not addressing the cost of care. the cost of care comes from 75 cents of every dollar that is being spent on chronic diseases. most of which are preventable. >> moderator: i want to stop you there. congressman from the same question to you. what are you willing to going to put the weight of your office behind finding the causes and solutions, one of the things that joyce brings up is that the word traditional has been applied. that is not a compliment.

>> no, it is not. some of the issues have to do with the issue that was racier with regard to being near the border. especially being susceptible to national trends when it comes to unemployment and the economy. we need something to desperately here in yuma, like a commuter plan that will make it easier for labor to come across in the daytime and go back at night. that is not really allowed easily in our system. one thing we have to avoid is the sequestration that is looming at the end of the year that will hurt, first and foremost, our military readiness. we have to make sure that we rationally look at that issue. also, i have to say that with things like the present health care plan, that just means fewer jobs, not more of them. that's what we have to look at.

the uncertainty on taxes and the certainty of regulation that is coming down. >> moderator: let's move on to the next topic in question which will be given by michelle faust. >> moderator: many problems include a lack of health care providers, state and federal funding cuts, access and a loss of many facilities, additionally, when patients cannot pay, there are further financial losses to the institution. for example, our local hospital lost $40 million this year alone from unpaid treatments that contributed to the layoffs of 135 employees. do you have a plan to help improve the health services available to patients in rural arizona where we have very unique financial and logistical challenges? flake: thank you. i grew up in rural arizona. i know the issues. the difficulty that my parents

had at times, particularly to find doctors willing to treat them. that is going to become exacerbated as we go forward with the president's health care plan as well. let me take another issue that you mentioned. uncompensated care. you really feel it here. i toured the hospital here. i know the issues that we are faced with. were you are required with anyone who comes, it just means that unless the federal government reimburses them, then the hospital has to do and taxpayers have to do it. that is unfair. we, as the a congress, the delegation has worked hard to make sure that the funding for the staff and reimbursements are there, the costs are borne by the broader community. not as health care, education, criminal justice costs, those things are borne disproportionately by arizonans and by the border communities.

so yes, we need a plan to deal with that. but it has to start with the federal government doing what it has to do is they impose mandates on the mandates need to be funded. obviously, it will exacerbate the problem that we have with access to doctors and bull. carmona: i have worked with i.c.e. and the border patrol. my whole life has been about caring for others. ultimately i became the surgeon general of the united states. i have lived these issues every day of my life, right up to the cabinet level and dealing with our secretaries and the president. i know the issues and how difficult they are. this is not simply an issue of getting more doctors. we have to revamp our whole health care system. the congressmen again, there is

a sound bite with this party. governor romney said there is some good stuff in here. these pre-existing conditions, we should allow that to be. if your kids is like mine, you want them to be covered till 26 or so because they keep coming home. even governor romney said we should retain certain things. it has good things in it, but it needs a better business plan. part of what we have to recognize is that it's not all about doctors. this is a disciplinary team that needs to be put together in communities to deal with doctors and nurses and we have to reform the system to one that approaches optimal care and wellness rather than waiting for people to get sick. we are going to incur a whole lot of debt and more problems as people get sick. >> moderator: congressman cummings your response?

flake: with were -- with regarding coming to the border -- i am working with ralph ogden. i am proud to have his support. if i was working these issues, it wouldn't have his support. but regard to the hospitals and patient care and access to doctors, whether we like it or not, the president's health care plan is an impediment to better access. >> moderator: doctor carmona, 30 seconds. carmona: i appreciate appreciate it. the congressman thinks that by rescinding the plan, this will correct the problem. it won't. these parties are not addressing the issues that remain to the rising cost of health care. this is not just a health issue. it is killing our small businesses and making it

difficult for people to get insurance. we need a new system and we need to address the incremental variables that contribute to the cost of health care. rescinding this doesn't do it. i am a police officer and half my life, most of the national police organizations, the arizona police association, as well as the national association of organizations of which i was chosen as the national top cop, they all endorse me as well. we are talking about solving problems. >> moving on, we come to a question from michelle faust. >> moderator: nearly half of all students live in poverty that attend schools in rural arizona. the outlook is bleak. fewer than seven in 10 will graduate, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

it means that schools in rural areas will continually get less money. how do you plan to legislator state's education budget to ensure that those students in rural areas are funded more fairly? >> i was just speaking when we started this on this very issue. i'm a product of a community college. i couldn't get into college because i was a high school dropout coming back from combat. but some we have the wisdom to say let's give these kids coming back from combat and opportunity. so i got open enrollment program and had a g.i. bill to give me money so i could get educated. i know the value of community colleges and i know what they bring to the community. we have to restructure how we invest in our communities. we need to do is we have so much problems and we need to be able to allow the schools to thrive. comprehensive tax reform is the way we have to start.

we have to create incentives within the community. that way the people that are innovators and entrepreneurs want to come here. this is a beautiful state. but when people want to bring their businesses and hire people, they ask about your school system. well, it's not doing so well. how about your health care system? how about the arts? how about theater and activities? we need to build an infrastructure of opportunity that makes this the most attractive place in the nation to stay. we could be the solar capital of the world. right now, you know, cole is 30% more energy of our energy is coming from. but the long-term plan is that we can actually do a lot of things. look at all the solar panels that we have out here in the demonstration project. this is where we are going in the long run. >> the numbers refer to k-12 education, is that correct? k-12 is a function of state

government. the stipulations and paperwork tie the hands of our local schools, teachers, and administrators. with regard to the federal government should do, your question is very relevant with regard to schools. part of the problem is that with the future of some of these big units like the navajo generating station where the coronado powerplant, it is something that the epa is trying to shut down. you want to affect local schools, allow the epa to move ahead and impose restrictions that will force those power plants to shut down. i can tell you that it is devastation in the local community. we have seen that happen. in my hometown, we have a paper mullett shut down. it would be up and running,

helping us manage the forests and to help us, but can't anymore because the epa has taken us out completely. the devastate the community. we have to make sure that economic development, and there is a large impediment right now with some of the federal agencies because arizona is 85% publicly owned. so it matters what the federal government imposes in our local communities. >> moderator: doctor carmona, you have 30 seconds. carmona: we agree on some things, we do. but i do not agree that we should abolish the department of education or the epa. who doesn't want clean water and air? it is pretty straightforward. the congress regulate those agencies. the congressman has been there for a dozen years. they only have the authority bestowed upon him by congress. i agree. arizona is different and we

cannot apply general epa regulations. this is arizona. but it is congress that has the authority to hold them accountable. >> moderator: congressman flake? flake: for the past 3.5 years, we have unable to exercise that role. under harry reid's control, we have not passed the budget. when the senate doesn't pass hasn't passed a budget, we don't go through regular order passing appropriation bills one by one. when we do go through it, it allows me to work with ed pastor and others from arizona to actually bring these agencies in. when the senate will pass a budget, we can't do that. that is why the senate needs to change leadership. >> moderator: moving again along to more issues. joyce lobeck has the next question for congressman flake. >> moderator: both of you have touched on the subject of my next question, but i would like to go into it in more depth. hundreds have expressed the need

to provide labor force they need to produce their crops. in yuma county, farmers have advocated for a guestworker program that would allow people who live in mexico to cross the border each morning to work in the fields and return home at night. as immigration reform needs help, what features would you consider critical? flake: we do need to revamp it. certainly we need a better program. also a better program for non-aquaculture workers. we simply don't have a program that is robust enough to take care of what we have. they are simply saying that we

don't have the workforce, and i believe them. .. carmona: again congressman flake and i agree a lot of good policies and procedures are antiquated but this question lends itself to one of my earlier answers needing reform

which means visa state worker programs that don't impede congress but enhance congress. the border needs to be secured, there's no question about it that we can't let it be neat and embed them into commerce and so many pro-jobs count on that and we have to be able to enhance commerce. we are in agreement on those issues. but again, the congressman has been their dozen years. whether it's the epa and blaming the democrats on the other side because they didn't regulate appropriately or they are to blame and only the republicans will have the right answer doesn't make any sense. the system is broken. both sides are getting it wrong on a lot of issues because each side takes their heels and we don't get anything done. whether it's immigration reform, whether it's the specifics of visa moving across the border we have to stop this polarization and start solving problems. that is why congress is rated as low as it's ever been because they have been -- and they want people to solve their problems and that's not happening.

flake: outlining the problem is correct but i can tell you my record in congress has been one to reach across the aisle. i've been working on conference of immigration reform ever since i got to congress. i worked with luis gutierrez and we try to get comprehensive immigration through and unfortunately can't get the trust through until we get a secure border but on other issues as well i have been able to pass more amendments than any of my democrat or republican colleagues over the past four years because they reach across the aisle and work with the other side. that is what we need in the senate. carmona: the congressman talks about his bipartisanship but the fact is that's not true. he with his party more than michele bachmann does in the fact is when he talks about immigration, i called congressman gutierrez and his words were congressman flake abandoned me on immigration when it was convenient and he was with me when he wanted to be a senator he left. i think those comments are very

disingenuous and the other issue is in order to do the job of congress you have to show up to work. if you look at 12 years of congressman flake's attendance in committees and subcommittees, about 1300 that are listed, he has missed 800 of them. you can't do the job if you are not at work and any of us had missed two-thirds of our work we would be fired. >> congressman 30 seconds to respond. flake: the congressman has brought this up and is simply not true. it's completely not true and in terms of the record i think he's trying to cover for something that we pointed out that the doctor carmona did not vote in the 2010 elections in the and the general or the primary. the fema county report -- -- recorder's office does not show him voting. it helps to have voted in the last election so that is just not sure and i can tell you i do work across the aisle. the problem on immigration reform and the president proposed immigration reform, he won't propose a temporary or guest worker plan.

it's not conference of any more for the president. >> lets move on. the next question is for dr. carmona from michelle alice. >> the border between arizona and mexico is close to six ports of entry. customs and border protection are charged with preventing the movement of commercial product, a legal migrants, illicit drugs, weapons and potential threats to national security. all of these things must do without unduly slowing legitimate traffic including more than $20 billion of imports and exports each year and that is an arizona loan. what can the federal government do to help small border communities plan and execute improvements to the infrastructure leading to and including u.s. ports of entry and what role if any should the government have an expediting and helping improvements in infrastructure and the mexican side of the border? >> i will start with the last question. clearly we have to in

partnership with our counterparts in mexico have that discussion as to what the relationship is on the other side so we can actually be able to integrate our resources. when i was surgeon general i spent a lot of time working internationally on our national preparedness plans including the security issues along the border and it's really about striking a balance between both. we look at our border and the border becomes an issue because of national security but it's also this wonderful thorough fare for congress they point out and if we look at the blue and green uniforms, immigration folks as well as the border patrol there, we have to find a balance. this is a portal for commerce as well as keeping ourselves healthy and safe and secure. if we look at the amount of people coming across which is a net decrease now for a whole lot of reasons in the state including some of the or painful vitriolic expressions of some people who have alienated people who don't want to come here anymore including tourists, we need more help on the border. we need to use technology more so we can move trucks and people back and forth.

using advanced technology to identify people quickly and that is a federal opportunity because the borders of federal responsibility. we can't go along in this piecemeal band-aid fashion with a broken immigration program and not have conference of immigration reform. comprehensive immigration reform is about economics that you were talking about in making our borders more secure. is about facilitating goods and people on a regular basis so they can work here and go home and we profit, we all profit from that so the federal government does have an important role. >> congressman along the border? flake: we have better infrastructure over the past couple of years. the mariposa border in nogales has seen infrastructure improvements to almost a half-million dollars. the difficulty we are having now more than anything is getting appropriate staffing or those ports in that has been incredibly frustrating for those in congress. we haven't been able to get the

administration to actually propose the staffing model to tell us how much money we need to authorize and appropriate for the sports and in the last go-round, i actually passed an amendment in the house, the secretary's office by $50,000 a token amount just to force them to come with the staffing model. we have been begging them for a couple of years now to tell us what we need to appropriate to appropriately stuff those ports. it's about $7 million that comes through our state from people crossing through mexico in spending money just in retail shops. the fresh produce industry is about it 20 million-dollar industry that comes through nogales and yuma or sandal luis so it's incredibly important for the state that we not just have enough green uniforms on the border to make sure it's secure but viewed -- blue uniforms to make sure the sports radically

stepped. >> dr. carmona, 30 seconds. carmona: congressman flake and i are in agreement on staffing. i really feel we ought to enhance our use of higher technology so we can increase movement back and forth but we also again i want to go back to comprehensive immigration reform. part of the burden we have on the site is the apprehension and incarceration of folks who have been deported. it's killing us that without comprehensive immigration reform we will still have an economic burden and flow across the borders back and forth. i think the crux of all of this is about actively pursuing comprehensive immigration reform and stop the problem that has been perpetuated by congress failing to act. >> congressman, the final 30 seconds. flake: i think that's it. with to make sure we get these comprehensive immigration reform is desperately needed but first we have to ensure that the tucson sector looks more like the yuma center in terms of operational control. there has been wonderful

cooperation between local law enforcement and the federal government in making this border here, the 88 miles of the sector, secure. we have to do the same in tucson and then we can move on to all the thorny issues that are needed there including guestworker plans and making sure we have access to labor. >> and we have only got three questions to go. the next question is for congressman flake from anna from ke see why. >> proposition 120 calls to change the constitution and declared state sovereignty. if proposition 120 does pass and federal and state of pulled the constitutionality what do you plan to do to ensure the state is reaping the financial benefits of acquiring the land will not compromising the environment? >> thank you. i have not studied this proposition carefully or this proposal but i'm very skeptical of its outlook. other states have talked about

doing this kind of thing, having more influence over federal lands and i think it's going to require more than a proposition that the state level. what we do desperately need though is better cooperation between the state and federal government to manage the federal lands we have. right now we have wonderful national parks here in the state but we have a backlog in terms of maintenance. we have the largest ponderosa timestamp in the world but that won't remain so if we keep having these catastrophic fires. we have had two once-in-a-lifetime fires in just 10 years and unless we are able to go in and manage our forests and work cooperatively with the forest service and other agencies of government that our forests are going to go up in smoke, we have got to make sure that we have rational policy with regard to mining interests as well. we don't have that now and we don't have the federal government moving ahead allowing us to do a simple land transferred to allow the

resolution copper to expand and create more than 3000 jobs. these kinds of things need cooperation between the federal government and the state and we just haven't had that. >> dr. carmona we are talking prop 120. [inaudible] carmona: first and foremost let's not forget the united states of america. i agree with the congressman it's chilly to talk about seceding from the union. we are from the united states so that doesn't make any sense to drop out because you disagree with somebody. our strength is the amalgamation of 50 states that share resources and interstate highway systems and commerce. the department of education, interior and even the epa. we have to keep them in check though. the things that the congressman brought up are absolutely important. we need more cooperation but that is the inherent problem we have with congress today. there is no cooperation along party lines. all we do is bicker and fight and point fingers at each other

in the job doesn't get done. it's about time the public speaks up. again i'll go back to the fact that 90% of the public is disheartened with how they have been represented. we have to start solving these problems and they are not the under reach. the challenge is getting congress to cooperate and stop this bickering on both sides. >> congressman flake. flake: thank thank you and as part of winning in the federal agencies and working with the federal government corporately has to start with the senate passing a budget and like i say i can't oversimplify same port and to that. most the people look at the fiscal aspects and those are important but the real effect is without a senate budget the house and senate don't go through regular order and we aren't able to work cooperatively across the aisle on many of these issues. liaquat breed with my democratic colleagues particularly in arizona specific issues but when we pass amendments we know the senate don't take them off because they haven't passed a budget and will just do one bill at the end of the year with

everything thrown in. that has to stop. >> dr. carmona? carmona: i go back to what i said, congress is the inherent problem here. congressman blame the other side and says good solutions only come from an party. i've seen a surge in general both and i also said whether it's in health care or anything else. congressman chooses to blame the other side. it's much much more that we can be doing cooperatively. the congressman has taken positions that are ideologically driven in his party and attaches himself to congressman akin. he has been a proponent of redefining race -- rape as legitimate rape raben these are things we need to be talking about. health care for women, are veterans and our seniors. cid think the congressman -- congressman needs to respond. flake: let me tell you i'm going to work with the other side and challenge my own party when

needed. when we had the whole earmark problem for years, i went to the house floor and challenge my own party more than anybody because my own party was in charge. they weren't doing the right thing. i was removed from one of my committees as punishment for what they called that behavior. that was standing up to my own party on these issues so i do work with the other side and we have to have the other side willing to pass a budget right now. that is a problem. we in the house are passing budgets with the senate. >> let's let's move onto joyce flow-back who has a question for dr. carmona. >> the farm bureau says agriculture, nutrition, conservation and forestry policy. due to congressional and action the last farm bill in september. while food stamps, crop insurance and commodities support will receive funding in the interim, there is no support for that lower profile programs that drive innovation, create

jobs and support the next generation of farmers critical to rural areas such as yuma county where agriculture carries more than half the economy. if elected would you consider the farm bureau farm bill a priority, why are why not and what changes in legislation which would like to advocate? carmona: when elected it will be a priority for me because they realize how antiquated it is and i see how it represents broken congress. once again there fail fails that. we forget we have a big agricultural community that desperately needs the support to be able to do its job. it's about infrastructure for agricultural community. that is what we are talking about for having the supports in place and having enough dated if you will farm bill that addresses these issues but also a farm bill that addresses health because the farm bill is inextricably tied to help as well. as we look at the -- and tie to the pcb epidemic in our country

sometimes we are the ones contributing to the problem because of some deleterious problem. we have to look at that critically and say how do we ensure the infrastructure of opportunity here for agriculture community and how do we ensure that trade and trade imbalances are dealt with and have we appropriately supported are farmers who are struggling every day along the border? >> congressman you have 90 seconds. flake: moving on to specifics. we need to redo the farm bill in ways that will give farmer certainty moving ahead but it needs to be changed and revamped considerably. for a community like this that farms mostly fresh vegetables to get very little from the farm bill. is in the five top commodities and let me tell you how out of whack it is right now when the farm bill was last reauthorized many of -- the way we are subsidizing cotton is wrong. we can do that. the brazilians will certainly sue us and they will win and

then they will impose tariffs and everything else. guess what? they did. so now instead of changing the way we subsidize cotton farmers, we are actually paying $150 million a year to brazil to subsidize their cotton so that we won't have to change the way we provide subsidies here. that is wrong. that is out of whack. so is the program of direct subsidies, direct payments where we give farmer's money whether they grow crops are not. that is out of whack and that seems to be changing. i'm proud to have worked for years on trying to get rid of the ethanol subsidy that we have. about $6 billion of a tax credit for something that just is not working and actually is at detriment to our environment as well. that is gone now and that's a good thing that we need to do much more. >> dr. carmona 30 seconds. carmona: as i said to my remarks

in the congressman expanded i think we are in agreement that much needs to be done with reforming our farm bill in ensuring its contemporary and thought in nature and how it's expressed in supporting the farmers in our area. we have a broken congress. why wasn't this done? we have been kicking the can down the road for years in both parties have been derelict in their duties in each party blames the other. the fact is this is not that difficult to deal with and we know the issues about tariffs and subsidies. we have to have reasonable people sit down and start solving this problem. that is the politics that is killing us now. the gridlock because the party politics has not let us solve these problems. >> congressman, 30 seconds. carmona: congresses certainly dysfunctional. i would like to meet the other 10% that congress -- think congress is doing it just because everything to tell them. congress particularly the senate hasn't passed a budget in 1200

days is dysfunctional and it has to change. but it's not enough to just say we need to all work together. we do but you have to have specifics and you have to have knowledge of how these programs work in order to sit down with the other side and actually come to a rational agreement. >> we have reached the final question from michelle faust directed to congressman flake. >> congressman flake we have covered several issues that are relevant to rural areas in arizona. if you're elected to the u.s. senate which of these issues would you be able to tell rural arizonans that you champion for them when you run, if you were to run to re-election in 2018? flake: i will mention a couple. first i mentioned our problem with forest health and the fact that our ponderosa pines forest is going up in smoke. myself and senator kyl incented mccain and others have worked over the last several years am what is called the four --

forests, the four forests. this allows us to have industry in the forest on a commercial basis that helps us within the forest where needed and will help save these for us from environmental disaster when another fire comes. we just let out the first contract him a group called pioneer. they're going to start actually moving deep into the forest not just around the communities. that is desperately needed in and that's something we have done over the past couple of years. on the power generation issues i can tell you if the epa is successful in the obamas is successful in shutting down the navajo generating -- i will be devastating for the entire state. power and water rates will spike everywhere and that's something we are fighting for going back in the epa said the other day that they're not just looking at ngf, they are looking at choi, the core not a an apache as well i immediately got a letter to every member of the arizona

delegation to sign it. within a day including all the democrats and all republicans to tell the epa slow down, let's have public comment and let's have more hearings. we are working on those issues and have to continue to but you've got to be able to work with the other side on these issues and that is what i have a ability to do. >> dr. carmona, 90 seconds. carmona: which you repeat the question please? >> the issue relevant to rural arizona, if you were to win this election, what would you say to rural arizonans to -- carmona: its jobs and economy. we have 30% unemployment rate and there's a lot we can do that was mentioned about creating an environment that is conducive to attracting business and let small business grow. includes tax reform, closing the loopholes of the top in helping small businesses, keeping taxes low for arizona families and it also includes immigration

reform. as i pointed out in some of my answers already this is an economic issue as well. when we look at the border and the economic border and the relationships that have transpired between mexico and us in the immigration issue and national security we have to be able to enhance commerce while we improve security. we have to be able to inspire small and large businesses to come here because it's such a wonderful place to live. we have to create an environment through research and development tax credits and giving people an opportunity to come here. there plenty of entrepreneurs and businesspeople who would put their capital at risk if they felt this was a secure environment and the water was secure and sanitation is good in the schools were better than they are. moving his family here were families to build businesses so that is most important arizona is that we get our fiscal house in order, we have jobs for everybody, we change the climate we have but you can't do that without conference of tax reform and comprehensive changes along

our border which include securing the border but also being more innovative with visas, work permits and pathway to citizenship and they'll forget the dreamers. they need to be included in that. flake: with regards to to jobs in economy what we need is a change from the current course that this administration and the senate have put us on. it's a course that has higher taxes, more regulation assuming we can just redistribute the same pie that we have record rather than growing that pie. we need a change per tick every in rural arizona. we are disproportionately in rural arizona affected with the federal government overregulating particularly with all the public lands so to fix these communities in b.c. we have to do someone willing to go to washington and advocate and stand firm on these issues. that is what i plan to do. >> final 30 seconds.or carmona. carmona: is one we have heard several times and clearly the epa in trying to regulate dust

or hate doesn't make much sense. what we have learned is that one size does not fit all. arizona is unique and it has unique regulatory opportunities. but it goes back to congress. congress gives the authority to the epa to regulate. simply blaming the epa because congress failed to do its duty is disingenuous to me. the epa cannot work without authorization by the federal government and i'm in agreement with the congressman. we have to put that in check so doesn't impede our economy whether it's cold or anything else. >> i can't believe it's gone so quickly. we have reached the concluding statements. dr. carmona you have 90 seconds. carmona: i appreciate the opportunity to be with you here and i guess i will state the obvious. i'm not a politician and not running to get reelected or keep a party in power. i'm not looking for new career. in our collective issues depend on reasonable republicans and democrats to embrace civility

and solve our problems. a functioning democracy requires compromise. we haven't seen that for a while. i'm running to restore trust in government to the american people so as to ensure that every kid can obtain their american dream as i did. i want to thank you for the opportunity to be with you today. i ask for your support so i may have the privilege to represent you as the next united states senator from arizona. thank you. >> congressman flake. flake: thank you. i was glad to talk about arizona issues here today. hime fifth-generation arizona and raised in rural arizona. i know these issues. i have with them. i know what communities struggle with when the federal government is overbearing. that has to change. the course we are on right now, we need to work together desperately. the problem is that congress can't unless we have a senate that functions. in the senate doesn't pass a budget again, doesn't allow the

congress to regulate the epa and tell them what they can and can't regulate so that has to change. we have to have a change in course. it is not enough just to say you agree with your opponents. you have to have a position on these issues and advocate for them. and go to washington standing for something because if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything that harry reid puts on your lap. that is what we have had lately in washington. my history in washington has been reaching across the aisle, fighting my own party when needed, making sure that we compromised when required and when needed. barry goldwater once said, politics is nothing more than public business. sometimes you make the best of the mix bargain. we all know that is needed and we have to have people with a temperament, ability and knowledge to do so. i ask for your vote. i will value it and i will never forget where i came from.

>> that wraps up the u.s. senate arizona debate from western college in yuma arizona and my thanks to you dr. carmona and senator flake, anna, michelle and joyce and the audience for being so respectful. that wraps it up. have a good day. >> for the last four years the status quo in washington has fought us every step of the way. we have spent millions to stop us from reforming the health care system and spent millions trying to stop us from reforming wall street. they engineered gridlock in congress, refusing to compromise even on ideas that democrats and republicans have supported in the past. and what they're counting on now is that you will be so worn down, so discouraged via all this squabble and so tired of the dysfunction that you will give up, walk away and leave the powers that be